White House Seeks to Expand DNA DATABASE...

USA Today ^ | 4/15/2003 | Richard Willing

[michaelje]

WASHINGTON

[kaylar]

This wasn't a chat room , this was a BBS (now defunct)devoted to people trying to decide if they wanted to become parents. She had stated many times in the past that she worked in the county prosecutor's office, so i twas not like she was out of the blue announcing something not in accordance with her 'online persona'. And just because one CAN lie online, it hardly means that every single statement a person makes online is ipso facto a lie. My profile here has never contained untrue statements, for example.

[all4one]

"Gee, why stop with DNA from arrestees? Why not just take a DNA sample from every newborn?"

I think that the Pandora's box on our DNA has already been opened. I would be very surprised if each newborn "did not" already have a DNA sample taken without our knowledge, stranger things have happened, and only time will tell. All newborns already have a SSN at birth. Years ago you only needed a SSN once you started working.

I find just the SSN for newborns an infringement of privacy. Any investments for our children are now tracked from birth. All of these databases are a culmination of big brother watching us and our money.

[Poohbah]

This wasn't a chat room , this was a BBS (now defunct)devoted to people trying to decide if they wanted to become parents.

I'm merely pointing out that what you see ain't necessarily what you get.

She had stated many times in the past that she worked in the county prosecutor's office, so i twas not like she was out of the blue announcing something not in accordance with her 'online persona'.

I've heard of whole online personas being lies.

And just because one CAN lie online, it hardly means that every single statement a person makes online is ipso facto a lie. My profile here has never contained untrue statements, for example.

Which I cannot verify.

In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash.

[dirtboy]

You are not allowed to criticize this administration. For your good, please step forward for a lobotomy. Love, Big Brother

Yep, we've had at least fifteen posters on this thread criticize this proposal, but you can't criticize the Bush Administration.

You're like those antiwar nutbars complaining on CNN that their views are being censored, completely oblivious to the irony of their statement...

[Search4Truth]

We are becoming a nation of suspects.

[kaylar]

Do they still take footprints and handprints of newborns? I think they used to, to prevent mixups, as all newborns look pretty much alike. Could those prints even possibly be used to confirm identity of an older child or adult? And if so, who is keeping the print records?

That's a little far fetched, I know, and of course DNA is more reliable that a print. But this reminds me of a discussion that was running on FR re:men paying CS for children conceived in adultery. It was suggested that there be mandatory DNA testing of all newborns, but the father did not HAVE to see the results unless he wanted to. Hmmmmmm.....There's an angle that just might be exploitable....

[Poohbah]

Do they still take footprints and handprints of newborns? I think they used to, to prevent mixups, as all newborns look pretty much alike. Could those prints even possibly be used to confirm identity of an older child or adult? And if so, who is keeping the print records?

The separate states keep the records per their own laws.

And those prints have been used to confirm the identities of children abducted by their parents in custody disputes, IIRC. Not sure if they can ID an adult from them.

[kesg]

No, not exactly. Fingerprints dont provide you with an individuals genetic make up.

You have a tremendous amount of faith in the government.

Even if true, I couldn't care less whether the government has this information. It doesn't adversely affect any of the many freedoms that I enjoy in this country. To the contrary, it enhances my freedom to the extent that the government can use this information to catch criminals that they otherwise couldn't catch.

[kaylar]

Maybe computer imaging...Take a copy of the print and enlarge it to a size consistent with an adult wo/man's hand, and see how the lines change, like with computer ageing. But any interest in something like that went out the window with DNA, I'm sure,as the DNA is so reliable.

When I worked for the state of MO, they took my prints. It disgusted me, having my prints taken, and having to provide a urine sample....and the woman taking the sample was in the restroom with me. But I wanted the job, so I overlooked feeling like I was being judged as a probable scumbag. Wonder how long before any job-except for the most menial, perhaps-will require a print and a DNA sample? 10 years, 20 years-?

[kesg]

"Exactly. The only "privacy" being protected here is the "privacy" to commit a crime without being caught using DNA evidence -- not the kind of "privacy" that the Constitution protects or our laws should protect.

Care to expand on that?

Not unless you have a specific question. I see a DNA database as a good thing, not a bad thing.

[webstersII]

I don't know what planet you live on but you need to get out more. If you can't see what kind of abuses can come from this type of information being available to EVERYONE (not just law enforcement) then you need to meditate on the posts in this thread a bit more.

[kesg]

"The only "privacy" being protected here is the "privacy" to commit a crime without being caught using DNA evidence."

It's not even about privacy. It is about preventing creeping incrementalism to where everyone in the country is treated as a suspect for crimes.

I don't see it that way at all. I see it as giving the government an additional valuable tool to do its job, which is to secure our individual rights from those who would deprive us of these rights, including criminals.

[Poohbah]

When I worked for the state of MO, they took my prints. It disgusted me, having my prints taken, and having to provide a urine sample....and the woman taking the sample was in the restroom with me.

Gosh, I guess my rights were horribly abused when I enlisted in the Marine Corps.

Here's a sympathy chit and the key to the weep locker.

[Protagoras]

Can anyone seriously doubt where they're heading with this? How blind can people possibly be?

If all the "conservatives" on this site who don't get it had seeing eye dogs, we couldn't take a step without cleaning off our shoes.

The frog is cooking.

[Protagoras]

including criminals.

Suspects aren't necessarily criminals.

[verity]

Dont try to tell this to 90% of the memebers on this forum.

Thus only 10% of the members are paranoid.

[Protagoras]

We are becoming a nation of suspects.

IRS code.

[kesg]

I don't know what planet you live on but you need to get out more. If you can't see what kind of abuses can come from this type of information being available to EVERYONE (not just law enforcement) then you need to meditate on the posts in this thread a bit more.

I skimmed this thread, and for the most part it looks like the usual paranoid rantings from libertarians and conspiracy theorists. I am not seeing any well-reasoned argument against the use of a DNA database to help law enforcement catch criminals, including but not limited to why any solution short of doing away with such databases altogether would be a bad idea.

[kaylar]

I wasn't asking for sympathy from you or anyone else. I'm just saying that the government-state and federal-already is too prone to keeping tabs on us, invading our privacy, and treating us like we're all a bunch of drug-abusing criminals. This is more of the same.

[Poohbah]

Hmm.

You're worried about people getting arrested getting a DNA sample taken.

How often do you get arrested?